Erickson makes several comparisons between personalized learning systems and Skinner. Her primary argument is that these systems isolate the learner, making them disconnected to each other and do not encourage collaboration.

First, while I understand the argument she is making, I feel it is a bit one-dimensional. Yes, if students were exclusively working alone for days on end, with only a algorithm to teach them, it would be characteristic of some dystopian future. But that isn’t the case – or at least shouldn’t be – and isn’t the intention. Technology like Khan Academy should be used in conjunction with collaborative active learning.

Her argument is like saying we shouldn’t use books to teach math because then students will be isolated reading and working alone. I see personalized and adaptive learning systems as a more advanced textbook. It should be one part of the experience.

Second, her assumption is that technology can not be used to enable collaboration and communication, only isolated rote learning. There are many examples (including the platform we’re in now) that show the possibilities of web-based collaboration.

This first argument is against isolating students; I can agree with that, but I don’t this technology is the threat. Teaching methods with promote better communication and collaboration.

In terms of the ISTE standards, personalized learning is most aligned with Standard 1, Empowered Learner. Specifically 1A and 1D. These systems aid in transfer of fundamental concepts (1D) and aid learners in the learning process (1A). I would actually take the opposite position from Erickson, that personalized learning systems can provide the opportunity for more classroom collaboration. With these ISTE standards met outside the classroom, independently, there is more time in the classroom for rich communication – modeled the flipped classroom.

Erickson makes connections to Skinner’s model and modern personalized learning pedagogy. Skinner’s learning machine represents a scenario where subjects, rats in Skinner’s case and students in Erickson’s case, are given a learning task and cannot move on to the next exercise until the current task is complete. Erickson argues that parallels exist between the indolence and autonomy given to learning students and their ability to dictate their own pace.

The downside to this approach is the lack of student-student interaction. For example, Khan Academy relies heavily technology to facilitate student-content interaction. Due to the increased freedom this provides to the instructor, when students get stuck the instructor has the ability to provide personalized teacher-student interaction. However, in a student-paced learning environment, gaps are naturally going to form between individual learners. With students at a variety of different points in the subject matter, it makes it difficult to facilitate ongoing student –student collaboration.

Erickson cites Peter Tucker and Elsevier as an example what not to do with technology, yet when I listen to their initial screencast, I cannot help but be impressed with their goals and drive to make the world better through technology. They want to “advance healthcare, open science and improve performance for the benefit of humanity.”

It is true that on Peter Tucker’s Linkedin summary he shares his passion for making processes more efficient, but I do not agree that that goal must mean that in education, we should not consider what processes could be more efficient. Just because business focuses on efficiency, schools can, too, continually check themselves to make sure that student needs are met even while considering what makes the school run more efficiently. No doubt the answer will point to some form of technology.

For Erickson, charter schools serve just one segment in society (and that, with a heavy dose of technology) and she takes issue with that.

Another view might be that charter schools offer opportunities for various emphases in content (math, for example), thus supporting the academic interests of students, which in turn could lead to innovations not possible without this early support and development of inherent talents/interests of students.

Charter schools have a unique position in society. Because they receive public funding, they appear to be public schools. But because they can fund raise and offer things outside the budget allotted to them, they appear private, too. One purpose of a charter school could be to try new things. It is the perfect setting to encourage innovations which will likely include technological components. It would seem short-sighted to stop innovation in such a setting.

Erickson seems to have a negative opinion of charter schools and privatized education at a whole. While I have worked in and seen firsthand some of the issues of for-profit education, I whole heartedly believe it can be done well. When organizations, even non-profits, have a strong focus on their bottom line they tend to be better stewards of their resources. In an educational instruction that is mission driven, this could result on more resources being put into classroom. Additionally, when an origination is run like a business, there is a mindset on staying competitive in order to thrive. Taking into account the consumer driven mindset, it behooves the school to drive student outcomes because that is essentially the product charter school consumers are buying.

Erickson’s arguments here I believe are valid. She mentions teachers not being able to use technology in new and creative ways and being forced to adopt technology in rigid formats. This is definitely a problem. In honesty it’s not one I see in higher ed a lot since there are fewer standards like common core. However in medical education, we do see a similar trend of teaching directly for the boards. Faculty resist technology because they feel they need to get through all the material and don’t have time to experiment.

I live in LA right now and remember the iPad debacle that Erickson mentions. LAUSD is a really big deal here and I have several friends that work in the district. So the underlying implication of EdTech companies taking advantage of districts is a valid concern.

Likewise the digital divide mentioned is troubling. For the parents in Peru to spend 1/4 of their income on grade school is not sustainable. This seems elitist and is a poor distribution of the advantages possible with technology.

Also mentioned is the fact that this practice will further stratify these children into homogeneous groups. ISTE standard 7A “Students use digital tools to connect with learners from a variety of backgrounds and cultures, engaging with them in ways that broaden mutual understanding and learning.” clearly addresses this concern. The system mentioned in Peru does not promote this standard and further enforces a social order based on income.

Erickson is not optimistic about curriculum reform happening quickly, but she believes it will come eventually. She cites examples of students, parents and even unions pushing back against the expectations to achieve standards (tests) and the pressure put on schools (teachers, students, parents)to reach benchmarks. She believes that this pushing will make momentum for the social changes that need to happen in school.

Schools are places where we see social changes, true, but should they be the laboratories for social change? How will all voices be represented in that? Might neutrality and fundamental student support serve the world just as well?

She says that students complain of having too much homework and that it is not fun for them.

Being a student is a career, a job. There are tasks to be done for the affordances that will come today and in the future. No job is fun all the time. That is not a necessary component to happiness. True self-esteem comes from hard work and doing valuable things. That might mean a significant amount of homework and some many hours of just plain rigor.

Erickson describes an extremely sterile and almost dystopian learning environment where students are planted at an individualized work stations in silence with no peer interaction. While this example may seems a little stark, it does highlight her claim that student centered learning stops at the individual student with no collaborative skills being taught. Erickson describes this process as exposing students to materials, having them commit it to memory, and immediately moving to the next task without making deeper connections or sharing insights. She explains that this approach does not instill critical thinking, help students make outside connections or aid students in seeing practical application. While I agree this is a disadvantage of the learning approach, I feel it can work well with specific populations or disciplines. For some learners, this may be the most effective approach to learning. This could be done very effectively in a charter school environment where students/parents could identify this being a better fit for the individual student and self-select enrolling in the curriculum.